Moore v. Stern

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that either Type I or Type II “differing site condition claim ‘stands or falls upon what is indicated in the contract documents’”
• stating that the court “must be careful to focus only on those damages directly attributable to the alleged differing site condition, and not on those damages for which concurrent causes, stemming from the plaintiffs own making, are equally to blame.”
• “[T]he assumption of a perceived fact which prove[s] erroneous ... is [unfortunately] a risk for which only the contractor must assume responsibility.”
• “Where the contract contains no affirmative (positive or negative) representations of the subsurface conditions ... the government has no liability.”
• “[A]ny proof of actual conditions encountered, proffered by the [contractor] to establish a differing site condition, is ... relevant only to the extent that it represents those conditions encountered.”
• while a miscalculation, “i.e., the assumption of a perceived fact which proved erroneous[,]| [is] unfortunate, nevertheless, it is a risk for which only the contractor must assume responsibility.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).